Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does anyone else find this creepy?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.
But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.
Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .
This would only be true of everything else were held constant, right?
If obesity is caused by one thing (soda consumption), then lowering soda consumption would have results. But if other things not being constant can also impact soda consumption, then obesity isn't caused exclusively by soda consumption.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current health epidemic.
In the bubble where I live? My father died of multiple organ failure related to heart disease and diabetes (unrelated to soda, which he never drank). Your assumptions about my life are seriously out of line.
Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the impact of obesity and/or diabetes. It may make you feel better to think that, but it isn't true. Consider this: people can have legitimate disagreement with your positions without being ignorant.
You accuse me of unjustified "outrage" which escalates my stance of feeling like it was "creepy," but makes it easier for you to tear down. Your response focused on yourself and your own perspective. How you woke up, how you felt. If you aren't in touch with why this matters, then it hasn't reached your "bubble." Just because you don't care about it and it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not a real issue, and it doesn't matter.
Please elaborate on why it would be better to not have a sign on that vending machine that says the equivalent of please consume our product in a balanced manner that takes into account your overrall intake and activity level.
I've done a fair job explaining the context of that sign in terms of Coke's involvement in obesity research and why they endorse that message. Maybe go back and the read the thread if you missed it.
@aqsylvester No, you really haven't.
You started a debate thread on this topic, and you're not debating. You keep responding to people's arguments with assumptions and personal attacks.
I understand that you have a very strong opinion on this, and that's great. We want you to back up your opinions when people provide dissenting opinions, rather than get emotional and angry. That's what a debate is.17 -
Mister_Ladyfingers wrote: »Rage_Phish wrote: »balancing what you eat drink and do makes total sense to me
whats the issue here?
It was said by a corporation. And corporations are the devil. And if the devil tells a truth, it becomes a lie. Don't you know anything about religion!
i work for a corporation, seems pretty chill so far
and religion is laughably terrible, which is not so chill0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current health epidemic.
In the bubble where I live? My father died of multiple organ failure related to heart disease and diabetes (unrelated to soda, which he never drank). Your assumptions about my life are seriously out of line.
Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the impact of obesity and/or diabetes. It may make you feel better to think that, but it isn't true. Consider this: people can have legitimate disagreement with your positions without being ignorant.
You accuse me of unjustified "outrage" which escalates my stance of feeling like it was "creepy," but makes it easier for you to tear down. Your response focused on yourself and your own perspective. How you woke up, how you felt. If you aren't in touch with why this matters, then it hasn't reached your "bubble." Just because you don't care about it and it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not a real issue, and it doesn't matter.
Please elaborate on why it would be better to not have a sign on that vending machine that says the equivalent of please consume our product in a balanced manner that takes into account your overrall intake and activity level.
I've done a fair job explaining the context of that sign in terms of Coke's involvement in obesity research and why they endorse that message. Maybe go back and the read the thread if you missed it.
So if Coke put up a sign that read, "Spend time with your kids, it's important," and they had been involved in some research that concluded the same, would you also decry it as false?
Just because a corporation uses some information in an ad campaign does not mean that information is without any merit. It just means they used it in an ad campaign.6 -
Yes. It's truly creepy and terrifying that companies advertise and seek profit. Their very existence proves that science is biased and they're beaming messages directly into our heads. No need to actually read and analyze the studies, or for that matter bother with a formal education. It's all a conspiracy and they'll indoctrinate you anyway. Not only that, but the government is out to poison our children with fluoride and vaccines, and chemicals are in our fruit.0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.
From the abstract of the study you posted:While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations.
Also, how did they control for caloric intake? By using self-reported data? People are notorious for underestimating what the eat. It happens every day in the general forums; people underestimate their intake but are adamant that they're eating at a deficit. Many who tighten up their logging find that they were eating more than they thought they were.
Not to mention but this was a "study" published by Robert Lustig, who is hardly a reputable source.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current health epidemic.
In the bubble where I live? My father died of multiple organ failure related to heart disease and diabetes (unrelated to soda, which he never drank). Your assumptions about my life are seriously out of line.
Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the impact of obesity and/or diabetes. It may make you feel better to think that, but it isn't true. Consider this: people can have legitimate disagreement with your positions without being ignorant.
You accuse me of unjustified "outrage" which escalates my stance of feeling like it was "creepy," but makes it easier for you to tear down. Your response focused on yourself and your own perspective. How you woke up, how you felt. If you aren't in touch with why this matters, then it hasn't reached your "bubble." Just because you don't care about it and it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not a real issue, and it doesn't matter.
I'm sorry my response made you feel unheard (at least, I think that's what you're saying). I hear what you're saying. I disagree with it, but not because I don't consider diabetes a real issue or think that it doesn't matter. Sometimes two people can care about something and still disagree about how it should be addressed.
I'm sorry for my assumption that you were outraged. I shouldn't have attributed emotions to you. It did look like outrage to me, but I accept that wasn't accurate.
Please consider that people disagreeing with your take on this ad doesn't mean they think diabetes and/or obesity doesn't matter. These things have touched my life, I've been overweight myself. I've lost people I care about. Others here who disagree with you probably have too.
Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.
And here we are.
This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?
And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
"Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."
Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.
Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.
I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.
Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current health epidemic.
In the bubble where I live? My father died of multiple organ failure related to heart disease and diabetes (unrelated to soda, which he never drank). Your assumptions about my life are seriously out of line.
Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the impact of obesity and/or diabetes. It may make you feel better to think that, but it isn't true. Consider this: people can have legitimate disagreement with your positions without being ignorant.
You accuse me of unjustified "outrage" which escalates my stance of feeling like it was "creepy," but makes it easier for you to tear down. Your response focused on yourself and your own perspective. How you woke up, how you felt. If you aren't in touch with why this matters, then it hasn't reached your "bubble." Just because you don't care about it and it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not a real issue, and it doesn't matter.
Please elaborate on why it would be better to not have a sign on that vending machine that says the equivalent of please consume our product in a balanced manner that takes into account your overrall intake and activity level.
I've done a fair job explaining the context of that sign in terms of Coke's involvement in obesity research and why they endorse that message. Maybe go back and the read the thread if you missed it.
I reread the thread in case I missed something. I haven't seen you explain why it would be better for that vending machine to have no sign at all.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Yes. It's truly creepy and terrifying that companies advertise and seek profit. Their very existence proves that science is biased and they're beaming messages directly into our heads. No need to actually read and analyze the studies, or for that matter bother with a formal education. It's all a conspiracy and they'll indoctrinate you anyway. Not only that, but the government is out to poison our children with fluoride and vaccines, and chemicals are in our fruit.
now you're just trolling1 -
I don't find it creepy.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.
But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.
Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .
This would only be true of everything else were held constant, right?
If obesity is caused by one thing (soda consumption), then lowering soda consumption would have results. But if other things not being constant can also impact soda consumption, then obesity isn't caused exclusively by soda consumption.
I agree 100%.
I didn't think anyone was arguing that soda consumption was the exclusive cause of obesity; but I may have missed it.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.
But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.
Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .
This would only be true of everything else were held constant, right?
If obesity is caused by one thing (soda consumption), then lowering soda consumption would have results. But if other things not being constant can also impact soda consumption, then obesity isn't caused exclusively by soda consumption.
I agree 100%.
I didn't think anyone was arguing that soda consumption was the exclusive cause of obesity; but I may have missed it.
If it isn't the cause of obesity, then I don't see the issue with soda companies reminding people to balance the calories they consume with the calories that they burn.2 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.
From the abstract of the study you posted:While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations.
Also, how did they control for caloric intake? By using self-reported data? People are notorious for underestimating what the eat. It happens every day in the general forums; people underestimate their intake but are adamant that they're eating at a deficit. Many who tighten up their logging find that they were eating more than they thought they were.
Not to mention but this was a "study" published by Robert Lustig, who is hardly a reputable source.
Lawl. I hadn't even gotten there yet.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.
From the abstract of the study you posted:While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations.
Also, how did they control for caloric intake? By using self-reported data? People are notorious for underestimating what the eat. It happens every day in the general forums; people underestimate their intake but are adamant that they're eating at a deficit. Many who tighten up their logging find that they were eating more than they thought they were.
Not to mention but this was a "study" published by Robert Lustig, who is hardly a reputable source.
Haha, I totally missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.0 -
Now this is creepy. In another thread right here on MFP, somebody is asking about some kind of weight loss hormone, saying they had great results from it previously and does anybody else have any thoughts? Their profile says they sell the stuff. So, it's a shill, selling a dangerous product, and outright lying to people. They seem just like any other individual here.
The ad we're talking about doesn't hide the fact that it's an ad. You know it's an ad, and if you're smart you disregard it.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Yes. It's truly creepy and terrifying that companies advertise and seek profit. Their very existence proves that science is biased and they're beaming messages directly into our heads. No need to actually read and analyze the studies, or for that matter bother with a formal education. It's all a conspiracy and they'll indoctrinate you anyway. Not only that, but the government is out to poison our children with fluoride and vaccines, and chemicals are in our fruit.
now you're just trolling
It's easier than debating the existence of Santa Claus0 -
I don't like it.
While I agree that CICO is the basis for weightloss, I don't like the idea of exercise as a currency for food or food as a reward for exercise.
Nutrition is important for health/wellness.
Exercise is important for health/wellness.
I think in the most basic way, most people (diabetics, pre-diabetics, insulin sensitive, etc excluded) are fine having 150 kcal of their daily needs met with soda. It's not a choice I would make, but I'm not their mom.0 -
If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.0 -
blondie_mfp wrote: »is this also a PSA? or an ad for milk?
Clearly that's a PSA for lifting, because that guy has the arms of prepubescent girl.1 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »I don't like it.
While I agree that CICO is the basis for weightloss, I don't like the idea of exercise as a currency for food or food as a reward for exercise.
Nutrition is important for health/wellness.
Exercise is important for health/wellness.
I think in the most basic way, most people (diabetics, pre-diabetics, insulin sensitive, etc excluded) are fine having 150 kcal of their daily needs met with soda. It's not a choice I would make, but I'm not their mom.
Every bit of cardio I do is for beer and food. I recognize that I get other benefits from it, but my sole motivation is for more stuff to cram into my facehole. If I don't do the cardio, though, I don't indulge myself with that extra food. Know why? It's because I try to balance what I eat, drink, and do.27
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions